Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis

Social sustainability is a crucial element of sustainable development but is often neglected in rural contexts relative to economic and environmental aspects. Rural regions face poverty, inequality, weak access to services, social polarization, environmental degradation, and climate vulnerabilities. China’s rapid urbanization has transformed rural areas but also produced imbalances, depopulation, hollow villages, and farmland abandonment. Rural revitalization and land consolidation have improved livelihoods, yet social problems persist: erosion of social capital, degraded land functions, and inferior public services. The withdrawal of rural homesteads (WRH)—where farmers relinquish land-use rights for compensation—has become a core strategy in China’s rural land reform, aiming to optimize rural land use, rebuild urban–rural spaces, safeguard food security, and enhance living environments. While many studies examine institutional reforms and compensation mechanisms, few evaluate how WRH advances social sustainability, which requires understanding interdependent dimensions. Prior AHP-based assessments often ignore interdependencies, risking inaccurate decisions. This study asks: How successful is WRH in implementing sustainable rural social development? What criteria should be considered? Which dimensions are key contributors? Building on literature, the study designs an evaluation framework aligned with rural revitalization objectives but focused on social sustainability and land policy, examines interactions among dimensions/criteria, and identifies their relative influence. The paper reviews the literature and develops the model, details methods (Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL), presents results, and discusses conclusions and policy recommendations.

The review notes a proliferation of social development indicators (e.g., ISEW, SNBI, SWI) and composite indices but highlights a lack of tools tailored to homestead withdrawal policies and an overemphasis on environmental aspects. Many indices aggregate across dimensions additively (or via geometric means) and often neglect interdependencies critical to sustainable development decision-making. For rural social sustainability, equity, fairness, participation, social cohesion, health and welfare improvements for vulnerable groups are emphasized. A key challenge is accounting for synergies and tradeoffs among ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Drawing from the literature, the authors propose a WRH evaluation system structured around four interacting social dimensions: socio-ecological environment (e.g., water/air quality, sanitation, safety, landscape coherence, environmentally friendly building materials), social welfare (e.g., happiness, accessibility/mobility, public services, social protection, property rights, policy satisfaction, housing quality, health), social equity (e.g., enabling disadvantaged groups, education, livelihoods/employment, income gap, compensation protection), and social inclusion (e.g., sense of belonging, integration of migrants/locals, preserving heritage and cultural activities, culturally sympathetic design). The review underscores WRH’s potential to improve built environments, reduce environmental burdens via reuse of building stock, optimize mobility and accessibility, recognize property rights, and foster community identity and cultural continuity—all contributing to social sustainability.

The study employed a two-stage mixed-methods approach combining a modified Delphi method and fuzzy DEMATEL to construct and analyze an evaluation system for WRH’s social sustainability impacts. Stage 1 (Delphi): Based on an initial longlist of indicators from the literature, a structured two-round Delphi survey with 13 experts (academia, government, enterprise; criteria: ≥5 years relevant experience and mid-level position/degree) in Fujian (China) refined and validated the criteria. Experts rated the importance of four dimensions and associated criteria on a 7-point scale. Extreme values were removed with participant consent. Descriptive statistics (mean, quartiles, SD, CV) and Kendall’s W tested consensus (W=0.144, p<0.001). Indicators with low importance/consistency were revised: several items were combined (e.g., water, air, safety merged into living conditions; others combined into social equality in employment), yielding a final system of 4 dimensions and 20 criteria across environment, welfare, equity, and inclusion. Stage 2 (Fuzzy DEMATEL): To capture causal interdependencies, a separate panel of 15 experts (adding real estate professionals) assessed pairwise influence among the 20 criteria using a 5-point Likert scale mapped to triangular fuzzy numbers (No/Very low/Low/High/Very high influence). Steps: (1) collect judgments; (2) build the fuzzy direct-relation matrix via arithmetic means; (3) normalize using the maximum upper bounds; (4) compute the fuzzy total relation matrix S = X(I−X)⁻¹; (5) defuzzify using CFCS to obtain a crisp total relation matrix; (6) compute row sums (R, influence given) and column sums (D, influence received), centrality (R+D), and causality (R−D) for each dimension and criterion; (7) determine a threshold (average of matrix elements) and plot Influence Network Relations Maps (INRMs) at both dimension and criterion levels to visualize causal structures and identify key drivers and outcomes.

- Dimension-level influence (Table 7): Social equity (D3) and social welfare (D2) are net cause dimensions (R−D > 0), with D3 most influential (R=4.128, D=4.523, R−D=+0.395) and D2 also causal (R=7.994, D=8.115, R−D=+0.122). Socio-ecological environment (D1) and social inclusion (D4) are effect dimensions (R−D < 0), with D4 the most affected (R=6.097, D=5.651, R−D=−0.445). Centrality (R+D) ranks: D2 (16.319) > D4 (11.749) > D1 (8.777) ≈ D3 (8.652). - Key criteria by centrality and thresholding: Increasing happiness (C5, R+D=2.925), enhancing residents’ sense of belonging (C16, 2.922), enhancing social inclusion/integration (C17), and improving living conditions (C1, 2.483) emerged as key criteria affecting social sustainability under WRH. - Principal causal (driver) criteria (highest R−D): Improving education levels (C13, +0.256) is the strongest driver, followed by safeguarding homestead compensation benefits (C9, +0.209), securing homeownership/property rights (C8, +0.186), improving infrastructure facilities (C7, +0.183), enhancing village mobility (C6, +0.169), enhancing local government support policies (C15, +0.157), designing with local culture (C20, +0.117), promoting social equality in employment (C14, +0.089), improving housing quality (C10, +0.068), improving the built environment (C3, +0.031), and preserving local heritage (C18, +0.008). - Principal effect (outcome) criteria (negative R−D): Preserving folk art and folklore activities (C19, −0.009), improving sanitation (C2, −0.049), enabling disadvantaged groups (C12, −0.107), improving health (C11, −0.180), enhancing social inclusion (C17, −0.274), enhancing sense of belonging (C16, −0.287), and especially happiness enhancement (C5, −0.513) are primarily outcomes influenced by the causal drivers. - INRM insights: Equity and welfare act as antecedents influencing inclusion and, to a lesser extent, environmental outcomes. Education (C13) and compensation/property rights (C9, C8) propagate positive impacts across many criteria, including cultural preservation and well-being. - Delphi outcomes: The expert process consolidated 24 initial items into 20 coherent criteria with acceptable consensus (Kendall’s W significant), supporting the content validity of the evaluation framework.

Findings indicate that WRH contributes to social sustainability through a causal chain where social equity and welfare improvements drive advances in social inclusion and, subsequently, environmental and well-being outcomes. Specifically, enhancing education (human capital), securing compensation and property rights, and upgrading infrastructure and mobility are leverage points that cascade to increased happiness, stronger sense of belonging, social integration, cultural preservation, and improved living conditions. This networked understanding surpasses traditional linear models (e.g., AHP-only approaches), demonstrating interdependencies among criteria. The results align with literature linking education and equitable resource distribution to broader social outcomes, and they position happiness as a downstream result of systemic improvements. Policy significance: Prioritize investments and reforms that (1) raise education levels and access, (2) ensure fair, protected compensation and recognized property rights under WRH, (3) improve infrastructure and connectivity, and (4) reinforce fair employment and government support—these drivers will strengthen inclusion and ecological living conditions, thereby enhancing rural social sustainability.

The study develops and validates a WRH-focused social sustainability evaluation system comprising four interdependent dimensions and 20 criteria, and applies a hybrid Delphi–fuzzy DEMATEL approach to identify causal structures and key factors. Social equity and welfare are causal dimensions; education, compensation/property rights, and infrastructure/mobility are core drivers; happiness, belonging, and social integration are key outcomes. The framework offers policymakers a structured, interdependency-aware tool for prioritizing WRH interventions to maximize social sustainability benefits. Future work should integrate fuzzy DEMATEL with Analytic Network Process (ANP) to derive weights for comprehensive evaluations and test adaptability across regions through additional expert feedback and case applications.